Questions and Responses

1. Is there a centralized resource listing City properties and their addresses? Is there any resource showing open land or similar locations owned by the City?

Click here to view a listing of the requested City properties with APNs and legal descriptions (The previous list posted without APNs and descriptions can be found here). Properties may be subject to easements, covenants, or other factors that may impact development. Proposer is responsible for determining the suitability of any site(s) for potential development.

2. Does the square footage on the City-owned property list indicate the total size of the property, or the square footage available for development?

Only the total size of the properties is indicated of the City-owned property list.

3. Is there a preference for an earlier COD or is the preference a Q1 2021 COD?

An earlier COD is fine or even preferred.

4. Would Glendale allow third party ownership of projects on Glendale sites?

Glendale is not interested in third party owned projects on Glendale owned sites.

5. Does Glendale prefer a project that starts at lower duration and then increase to 4 hours by 2025, or a project that remains at 4 hour duration throughout?

It would be beneficial that the City receive the full 4 hours sooner rather than later. The objective is to maintain reliability during the deconstruction of the existing facility and the construction of a replacement.

6. Will there be any charging restrictions? Does Glendale need in-City generation to charge the batteries or do you have enough tie-line capacity for charging?

The charging issue would be dependent on ownership of the project. If the City owns the facility, there would be a need to study the charging requirement which will include capacity and hours of charge. In the event that the City purchases energy from a vendor, it would be the responsibility of the vendor to procure the needed energy from charging.

7. Are there any preferences for using local Glendale businesses in the evaluation criteria?

While Glendale welcomes the use of local businesses, this is not an evaluation factor.

8. Are there any preferences for using small or W/MBE enterprises in the evaluation criteria?

While Glendale welcomes proposals that use small or W/MBE enterprises, the use of small and W/MBE enterprises are not evaluation criteria.

9. For solar generation projects, is there a desired PPA term that GWP prefers?

GWP desires a minimum PPA term of 10 years.

10. Are there any current electrical transformer specifications desired?

It will be the responsibility of the bidders to adequately size any transformers to the City's distribution system.

11. Is there a current qualified bidders list that can be provided for this project?

The City has not published a list of qualified bidders at this time.

12. Are firm or estimated prices required?

The City seeks firm pricing for the proposals.

13. Is the City of Glendale making City-owned undeveloped land available to developers?

Proposers may propose a project on any City-owned land, subject to the following conditions:

The location of any project will be subject to City Council approval.

The ability to develop on any site (whether developed or undeveloped) will depend upon the parcel. Development of certain parcels may be restricted by title documents (grant deeds, covenants, easements, or otherwise). For example, certain open space parcels in Glendale may be subject to a covenant prohibiting development. It is incumbent upon the proposer to investigate this.

Any project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and City land use requirements.

The proposed project must not disrupt, displace, or interfere with any other City program or facility.

14. Will projects with a COD of later than April 2021 be considered?

Projects that do not meet the state April 2021 COD deadline will not be considered as part of this RFP.

15. Which transmission lines bring in power from the Southwest to GWP? What is the available transmission on each line?

Southwest AC transmission bottlenecks at the Victorville - Los Angeles transmission path (Vict-LA). This line is wholly owned by LADWP and is comprised of three 500KV and two 287KV lines. The City has TSAs that make up the 100MW import capability from the Southwest. If remote projects are offered it is mandatory to deliver all power to the Glendale side of Air Way Receiving Station.

16. What are the locations of GWP substations and is there available space to add a battery energy storage system within their yard? What is the location of the Grayson Power Plant and is it possible to add battery storage to this site prior to its anticipated retirement? Is there any utility-owned land where battery storage may be constructed and interconnected to GWP’s system?

GWP has not identified any utility-owned facilities that could house a battery project other than the Grayson Power Plant site. Substation sites are very congested. GWP has proposed a 50MW-200MWh battery facility as part of the proposed repowering. It is anticipated that a potential battery storage facility would be integrated into the Grayson Power Plant site at the time the current plant is retired/reconfigured/repowered.

17. What is the assessor parcel number (APN) for Vacated Air Way (1.15 acres) listed on page 12, and for Vacant Lot (0.88 acres) listed on page 11?

For the Vacated Air Way parcel, the APN is: 5627-025-908.

For the Vacant Lot, there is no APN or address listed, but the following is the legal description: THAT PART OUTSIDE GLENDALE CITY TAX DIST NO 1 - CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF LOTS 6, 7, 19 AND 20 BLK 14 GLENDALE BLVD TR AND LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8 TR NO 491 DAF LOT COM AT INTERSECTION OF W LINE OF LOUISE ST WITH NE LINE OF VERDUGO WASH

Please see link in Question 1, which includes APNs for all city-owned parcels other than critical infrastructure.

18. Is there a map of all substation locations within the City of Glendale?

Substation locations are confidential as they are critical infrastructure of the City.

19. Is aggregate load data available in a format and granularity that is conductive to quantitative analysis?

Click here to download an Excel file of the aggregate load data from 2013 - 2017.

20. Are the McCullough 500 or Mead 230 acceptable points of delivery?

MCC5 or MD230 are not acceptable delivery locations for this RFP. Delivery must be to the Glendale side of Air Way. This transmission must be purchased from LDWP using their OASIS site. Transmission and delivery must be firm and for the same duration as the long-term asset.

LADWP as the balancing authority is required to test their meters and validate those on a yearly basis. LADWP works with GWP to do similar sort of testing on our interchange meters. GWP does not currently have any regulatory requirements about those measurements.

25. Can GWP provide a map of the eligible geography in which eligible resources can interconnect?

GWP recommends that proposers use Google Maps to identify eligible geography. Resources coming from outside of Glendale must be delivered to the Glendale side of the Airway delivery point.

26. Can you list contract templates that you intend to distribute? Will there be templates for both GWP owned and third-party owned structures?

For other projects, we would request that proposers propose contract templates or term sheets that the proposer would like to see in your contract for us to consider as part of our evaluation. Please keep in mind that the City is a public agency and certain contractual provisions (such as California Public Contract Code and City requirements) will be included in the final contract.

27. Do these same increment requirements apply to non-storage generation and/or load modification?

Yes, one-half a megawatt is the minimum size. However, the overall proposal must be at least 1.0 MW. Given that Glendale needs an additional 234 MW of local capacity, larger sized projects are preferred.

28. What is the desired length of PPA? For solar generation, Q&A responses indicate 10 years is preferable. Are other contract lengths acceptable? What about for resources other than solar generation?

Ten years is the minimum PPA term for any resource (including solar generation). Longer contract lengths are acceptable.

29. It looks like GWP may select several different generation options from different bidders, including both in-city and out-of-basin resources. Is it required that a bidder proposing an out-of-basin renewable project incorporate new transmission capacity even if, in combination with other new in-city generation from a separate proposal from a different bidder, the existing GWP transmission capacity would be adequate?

Yes. Any proposed resources coming from out of City limits must be interconnected on the Glendale side of Airway. If the proposed Project is out of Glendale the proposal must include transmission. Glendale does not have excess transmission available.

30. Regarding potential for Energy Efficiency, has an EE Potential study been completed for GWP?

31. The RFP shows 211 Industrial accounts. How much of the total load of GWP is represented by these 211 Industrial accounts?

Approximately 1/3 of GWP’s total load is represented by industrial accounts. See the chart below:

32. Will Customer information be available (e.g. addresses) if an NDA is executed?

No. Based on California law GWP cannot provide customer information unless the customer gives us permission to do so.

33. Will EE require M&V (measured capacity/energy? and are there any limitations on Estimated Useful Life for EE measures?

Yes, M&V will be required for EE. The basis for such is the 2017 CMUA Savings Estimation POU Technical Reference Manual which can be found here.

At a minimum, GWP will need annual regular reporting of energy and demand savings, both first year and life of measure so that we can include such in our annual reporting to the CEC. Annual reporting should follow 2017 California Public Owned Utility Energy Efficiency Reporting Guidelines which can be found here.

Reporting should be in a format compatible with GWP’s annual reporting to the CEC. GWP uses the Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) designed Energy Efficiency (EE) Reporting Tool to analyze and report on the energy savings results from energy efficiency programs. A newer model is being built for GWP to use and it is not finalized yet.

34. Will specific accounts/locations be required for responding to EE opportunity, or will we be able to bid an overall delivery that might be made up of multiple sites TBD?

While specific accounts/locations are not required for responding to an EE opportunity, the Proposer must demonstrate that the program will be successful in achieving the City’s goals as stated in the RFP. For example, the Proposal must include estimates of program effectiveness and penetration, with references to similar programs at other California utilities.

Additionally, proposers must provide calculations for the proposed program under the following tests:

Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC). Measures the effect of the conservation measure on the administrating utility’s revenue requirement. The utility’s costs of implementing energy efficiency measures include direct installation costs incurred by the utility (as opposed to the participant), incentives and rebates, administration, overhead and marketing expenses. Benefits are the utility’s avoided cost of purchasing or generating energy. This test does not consider the effect on utility revenues and the rates charged to its retail customers.

Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). Measures the cost and benefits of an efficiency measure as a resource option based on the total cost of the measure to the utility’s service territory, including both participant and utility costs. Costs include the cost incurred by the participant to purchase, install and maintain the more efficient equipment and by the utility to market and administer the efficiency program. Any direct installation costs incurred by the utility are also included. Incentives and rebates are not included as they are not a resource cost; instead, they are transfers from the utility to the customer. That is, a rebate increases the utility’s cost and decreases the participant’s cost by the same amount, with a net effect of zero.

Participant Cost Test (PCT). Measures the quantifiable costs and benefits to the customer from participating in an energy efficiency program. Participant costs include purchase and installation costs for the efficiency measure, less any incentive or rebate received from the utility. Benefits are the participant’s bill savings due to reduced energy consumption.

Ratepayer Impact Measure Test (RIM). Measures the net impact on average rates for the utility. This test compares the cost savings to the revenue losses resulting from each measure. The cost savings are the same as those for the Program Administrator Cost Test, while revenue losses are the program implementation costs (utility incentive, direct install costs and marketing, overhead and administration) plus lost revenue from reduced energy sales to the member utilities. If the marginal cost of electricity to the utility is higher that the rates charged to member utilities, the avoided costs will more than offset the revenue losses, leading to a positive RIM test (a ratio greater than 1).

Social Cost Test (SCT). Measures the cost and benefits of an efficiency measure as a resource option based on the total cost of the measure to society as a whole. Similar to the TRC test with the addition of societal costs and benefits. Societal benefits include positive environmental externalities such as reduced emissions. Other non-energy benefits include improved health, increased productivity and reduced late bill payments or shutoff notices.

35. If we have a pending interconnection request with LADWP, how would we use that capacity to serve GWP?

A pending interconnection request with LADWP would not be sufficient to ensure that the resource can be delivered to GWP customers. Resources out of City limits must be interconnected on the Glendale side of Air Way.

36. Is there a place where we can find out what existing grid-scale distributed resources are owned by the city?

Information regarding the City’s existing distributed resources is found in the EIR for the Grayson Repowering Project, found at www.graysonrepowering.com.

37. Can you provide detailed information on the existing interconnection equipment for Grayson? Information that can help us determine the capacity that can handle. Transformers, etc.

The current Air Way transformers can accommodate more than the City’s historical peak load. Through a contract with LADWP, the transformers are owned, operated, and maintained by LADWP. Additional details can be provided as requested.

38. Will the interconnection process or scope be part of the Grayson battery supplier’s responsibility?

Yes. The City expects that if you propose a battery at Grayson, you include the engineering and interconnection. We are not looking for proposers to simply deliver a battery and ask the City if we know how to connect it.

39. Would permitting and study work be part of the proposer’s scope or GWP’s?

Permitting and studies would be part of the Proposer’s scope of work.

40. Are there values that you can talk about besides generation that the city needs that could offset some of the costs of battery storage? Is there any historical data you can provide us on this?

The highest value in this context is the capacity. Battery storage would also be used for ancillary services. We do not have historical data.

41. Is GWP planning to join the EIM?

GWP is not currently looking at being in the EIM. However, if your proposal contemplates GWP joining the EIM, please specify that in your proposal.

42. Can you provide basic details on the public facilities such as basic electrical interconnections, reservoir caps, and structural capacity?

If you have a request about a specific facility, please let us know and we will provide that information.

43. Does GWP have a preferred ownership structure or preference how the asset will be conveyed?

Proposers should make a proposal for the City’s consideration.

44. Is there any distribution level data or hotspots within the city that may be more beneficial to the grid and to Glendale by locating capacity there vs other locations in the city?

The location and severity of the so-called “hot spots” vary from season to season, depending upon the level of distributed generation, temperature, duration of high temperature, and the current state of the distribution network. The current GWP network was designed with the Grayson power plant as the “source” of energy, so placing large amounts of distributed generation (e.g., batteries) throughout the distribution system will require further study to determine the impacts on the distribution network. Additional details can be provided as requested.

45. Is GWP part of SCPPA?

Yes.

46. Do we have to have a submit a price bid to SCPPA for this RFP?

No.

47. Is there a distribution model that you’re using to look at to determine any overload on the current distribution system?

We will consider it. The RFP states: “The City will consider ownership of storage projects that are not located on City property, in addition to lease or power purchase agreement options, but will not assume development risks.” The RFP also says: “For resource options that are to be placed on City property with a physical foot print, such as solar panels, batteries, or chillers, the City prefers to own these resources from the outset.”

50. Are your 200 MW of transmission rights fully utilized?

Yes.

51. Are you able to acquire more transmission rights on the IPP Project transmission?

There may be a possibility of a small amount of transmission available on the STS line, which interconnects with LADWP's transmission line, but this is not certain and should not be assumed for purposes submitting a proposal. Any proposed resources coming from out of City limits must be interconnected on the Glendale side of Airway.

52. Does Glendale have a balancing requirement within the distribution system? If so, what is the response time to balance the power?

There is no “balancing requirement” within the distribution system. We address imbalances as they occur as a cooperative effort among Dispatch, Engineering, and the field crews. Dispatch monitors the phases on a real-time basis and engages Engineering and the field when they identify potential problems.

53. With regard to the table in the RFP with the Battery Storage options, should Proposers submit a proposal for every option?

You should determine what the best value is based upon the current state of battery modules and propose what you believe to be the best option or options.

54. Is there a preference for a portfolio solution even if it is not the best option financially or if it is priced higher? And, given the market, do you have a sense of what the portfolio balance should be?

Price is a factor, but GWP also values diversity. In the RFP we said in many places "projects" with an "s." We can integrate multiple projects into our portfolio if it works for us. We have not done an analysis of the best portfolio mix. With regard to storage, presently we have a 2 MW BESS, and when that BESS size is compared to the size of GWP's overall system, that puts GWP in the top five of the nation. We have proposed a 50 MW battery system. We believe that 50 MW of battery storage in the portfolio is about as much as we can recommend in the portfolio.

55. Once you recommend a portfolio and proposers get notified that their proposal looks good, what are the next steps?

We will review the proposals all of August and all of September. We would like to get the proposals incorporated into the IRP filing in January 2019. As we develop a tentative portfolio, we are likely to schedule interviews with the firms to talk about more specifics to fine tune the review process.

Environmental review of the proposed solution(s) will also need to be considered. This could affect the schedule.

56. What date are you looking at to get contracts in place?

Summer of 2019. We don’t want to push it out any longer. At the moment we only have 2 units at the power plant that are operational, we are expecting a warm summer, and LA has already told us that they will not be able to help us. We are not trying to delay.

57. Will you accept a COD before April 2021?

Yes.

58. What is your current per KWH pricing? What are you expecting to get with this RFP?

We are looking for the cheapest you can give us. We want to have the lowest rate impact possible.

59. What is the preferred maintenance arrangement for a BESS?

You would maintain it for a period of time (e.g. 20 years) after the system goes live. For maintenance, some utilities will have their own staff maintain the batteries. We would like to outsource the maintenance as it is easier and GWP has not yet developed the experience. We may transition to in-house maintenance in the future.

60. It looks like Glendale is looking at proposals that add up to less than the total capacity that you need, and you’ll be collecting multiple proposals?

Correct.

61. Several of the properties on the City’s property list are over 200 acres. Did you conclude that none of those properties are suitable for any type of renewable development?

No, we have not reached that conclusion. We ask that the proposer evaluate the properties and determine whether they would be suitable. Many of the parcels that are labeled as open space parcels may be subject to limits or restrictions on development, but it would be necessary to review the title documents for the parcel in question. We have evaluated the landfill as a possible site, but the landfill is active and will continue to be active for another 12 years or so. Fill areas change regularly. Because of the active nature of the site it’s very difficult to develop there.

62. The bidder must indicate that they have prior experience over the last 5 years with a project of similar size and type. For storage, 50 MW will be the largest in the US. If you’re bidding for that type of project, how do you meet that qualification?

We are aware of this. What we’ve heard from people about storage (not just batteries) is that they have a project of a certain size, much smaller than 50 MW, that they have completed as an R&D project and then show the results. A 2 MW project translated to a 50 MW project is doable with batteries, but we need to determine how we’re going to manage it. We’re willing to listen to what you’ve done before.

We are looking for relevant utility-scale experience and demonstrated success in managing and completing large, complex projects.

Please see Addendum 1 for revised qualification requirements.

63. On the battery storage solution, what are you expecting for guaranteed performance duration? Battery long term guarantees can be pretty costly. What’s the city’s thought about taking some of that risk themselves? What do you expect from the bidders for this?

The City is not looking to take on risk. We understand, especially with batteries, we have to talk about replacement. We would like for proposers to give us options. For example, propose 10/20/30 year guarantee options for our consideration, then we can look at the price and then look at the risk we want to take in each scenario.

64. There’s a section on the RFP that talks about the performance bond. If you’re doing an EPC project, would the performance bond carry over to guarantee period?

Generally no. With regards to the maintenance period we typically require a maintenance bond. It's usually 5-10%.

65. Can the Proposer submit a letter of credit in lieu of the bonds?

An irrevocable letter of credit cannot be submitted in of the required forms of proposal security unless the project falls outside the scope of California Public Contract Code section 20170, but a letter of credit may be acceptable in lieu of a performance bond, on a case by case basis, depending upon the nature of the project and the City’s evaluation of the risk. The form and terms of the letter of credit would need to be approved by the City Attorney and the letter of credit would need to be issued by from an issuing bank approved by the City’s Director of Finance.

Please see Addendum 1 for the process for requesting a modification of the Proposal Security requirement.

66. Have you done any study for potential CAISO interconnection at the Eagle Rock station for Edison?

Yes. We have looked at that, but it is not a favorable proposition for us. The cost impacts alone would be tremendous and it would not benefit us from a capacity basis. It’s not just the cost to get in, but also the costs keep going up once you’re in.

67. For the battery guarantee, you don’t have much appetite for balancing services. Is it safe to assume when we’re modeling those guarantees we should assume a power factor of 1?

Not necessarily. Our main trust here is to meet load but we need to address voltage support issues as well. To the extent that we have the flexibility to do more than push out megawatts, we definitely want to look at that as well.

68. Can you provide interconnection capacities or rough line capacities for some of these other properties so we could know how big of a system will be proposed?

We can do that. For each substation we can give you the transformer & equipment capacities. We will need some time to have this information available. It will be updated soon.

69. Do you have a diagram available for the GWP Transmission & Distribution system?

We do have diagrams, but providing them raises a security issue. If you have a specific question about an area, we can zero in on that.

70. Does our proposed system need to be integrated into any other resources or should it be standalone? Is there anything else that they need to be integrated into?

We have some existing contracts such as shares in IPP and Magnolia. To the extent that those resources are still available, they will be an obligation for us to take. We certainly need to continue those. The system would also need to be integrated with Grayson Unit 9. All control systems for discreet generation and/or storage systems should be integrated into a single control system, providing a consistent, single-vendor user interface to operators and dispatchers. If there is a Grayson plant controller, the non-Grayson control systems should integrate with the Grayson control system to provide a consistent, single-vendor user interface to operators and dispatchers. However, alternatives to this approach will be considered.

71. How much space do we have available at the Grayson site for battery storage?

The available area is less than 50% of the total yard. The remaining site is in operations that will not change or go anywhere.

72. Do you know the timing to get an interconnection approved? If we’re coming in with battery storage you want us to do the permitting and interconnection, but what time frame is typical for this?

If the interconnection is to Glendale’s system only, we can work with you to help expedite this.

74. Would interconnection be with LADWP?

It could be, if your proposal goes further than just our transmission and distribution system.

75. Do both the Fire Department and City have jurisdiction over your land? Do we have to get permits from both?

Yes. For a battery energy storage system, we envisioned housing batteries in a building with fire suppression and temperature control. This was preferred over stacking containers for instance.

76. For any battery that is proposed at Grayson, would you consider that to be an addition the 50MW/200MWh that you are planning, or as part of that 50/200?

We are looking for the best portfolio for the City. The proposals should assume we are taking the proposed Grayson Repowering Project off the table, except for unit 9. Proposers should not look at what we’ve proposed; rather, proposers should assume you’re starting from scratch. With a 50 MW we’re venturing far out there. We’re concerned about going more than that, but we are not saying you shouldn’t propose more. We will take a look at it.

77. If there is a scenario that storage would be capped at 50 MW, would the City go with some level of repowering with gas as well?

It is a possibility. This will be a decision for the City Council.

78. If we are proposing an alternative beyond say 50MW of battery energy storage in the existing area, we would include deconstruction & demolition costs of existing old units?

No. You should assume that you get a clean site.

79. Do you guys connect to the 66 line at all?

No. GWP’s only interconnection points are at Western and Airway. All resources from outside of Glendale must be delivered to the Glendale side of Airway.

80. Is a geotechnical report available for Grayson?

A geotechnical report is available to proposers upon request. Geology and soils technical reports are also included in Appendix E to the Final EIR for the proposed repowering project, available at graysonrepowering.com.

81. Are the McCullough 500 or Mead 230 acceptable points of delivery?

No, McCullough 500 or Mead 230 are not acceptable delivery locations for this RFP. Delivery must be to the Glendale side of Air Way. This transmission must be purchased from LADWP using their OASIS site. Transmission and delivery must be firm and for the same duration as the long-term asset.

82. Would the City of Glendale consider accepting a Parent Company Guarantee in lieu of a proposal bond and performance bond?

If the proposer is proposing construction of a public work or the supply of materials for a public project to be paid for by the City, then the proposer must provide a proposal security as required by Section 20170 of the California Public Contract Code, in one of the forms specified in the RFP (cash, cashier’s check, certified check, or proposal bond).

If the proposer is proposing a power purchase agreement or another arrangement that does not constitute the construction of a public project or the supply of materials for a public project to be paid for by the City, the proposer may provide a letter of credit or a parent guarantee. Acceptance of a letter of credit or parent guarantee in lieu of the forms of proposal security specified in the RFP is subject to the following conditions:

The form and terms of the proposed letter of credit / parent guarantee is subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

The issuing bank/entity must be approved by the City’s Director of Finance.

The proposed letter of credit / parent guarantee should be submitted to the City for review no later than 10 business days before the Proposal Deadline for review 5 business days of notice that the proposer has been short-listed.

A letter of credit or parent guarantee may be accepted in lieu of the performance bond on a case by case basis (depending upon the nature of the Project and the City’s evaluation of the risk). The Letter of Credit or Parent Guarantee and the issuing bank / entity would be subject to the approval of the City.

A payment bond is required.

83. Would stand-alone proposals for out-of-basin renewable projects – i.e., without added transmission to Air Way -- be acceptable, recognizing that such projects would have to be selected in combination with separate proposals for generation in city to meet reliability requirements?

No. Out of basin renewable projects need to include delivery to the Glendale side of Air Way.

84. Would you need to balance your resources coming in from external resources with what is produced locally here?

We are part of the LADWP balancing authority and we are obligated to LADWP to balance our own resources and load in accordance with the requirements of our Balancing Authority Area Services Agreement. Our interconnection must always be within a +/-8MW band and presently, the imbalance is measured on a 15- minute basis. A copy of the BAASA is available here.

85. What is the response time that is required? (Refer to q. 84)

Currently, the requirement is 15 minutes.

86. As an EE & DR program provider, would it be possible to speak with the GWP program owners for residential and commercial programs to make sure our RFP response is incremental and relevant ?

We are not able to conduct pre-submittal reviews with individual proposers. However, we would recommend that you review the City’s Public Benefit Charge Program Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 here to get an idea of the EE and DR programs Glendale currently has in place.

87. To confirm, for storage bids, do we read correctly that resources must provide bid duration increments of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 hours in 2021?

Proposers may provide a proposal for one or more of the requested bid increments: 0.5, 1, 2 and/or 4 hours. It is up to the proposer to determine if it will respond to all of the bid increments or not and to determine what option(s) will be the most economic. For capacity, ½ an hour will not be sufficient.

88. If so, are there particular times of day when these bid increments will be requested? If we understand correctly, Glendale’s system peak should be midday to early afternoon. Storage can provide direct peak load reduction during this time period, with storage firming this output and expanding the solar capacity factor (as is happening in HI, AZ and other places now). Given that rooftop solar can be delivered at an LCOE below the retail cost of Glendale’s retail electricity, this should be a win-win-win to deliver a local, clean, low cost resource that maximizes peak load reduction for GWP.

Glendale's summer peak is roughly between 3-4pm however it is necessary to have capacity through at least 6pm. The increase in solar generation has created a shortfall of capacity from the time of decreased solar production till about 9pm. It is necessary to ensure that GWP has sufficient energy as well as capacity.

89. What is the minimum size increment that must be provided for storage resource bids? Will this information be provided in the offer forms?

One-half a megawatt is the minimum size increment. However, the overall proposal must be no less than 1.0 MW. Given that Glendale needs an additional 234 MW of local capacity, larger sized projects are preferred.

90. Are there particular times of day when these bid increments will be requested? If we understand correctly, Glendale’s system peak should be midday to early afternoon. Solar can provide direct peak load reduction during this time period, with storage firming this output and expanding the solar capacity factor (as is happening in HI, AZ and other places now). Given that rooftop solar can be delivered at an LCOE below the retail cost of Glendale’s retail electricity, this should be a win-win-win to deliver a local, clean, low cost resource that maximizes peak load reduction for GWP.

The increase in solar generation has created a shortfall of capacity from the time of decreased solar production till about 9pm. It is necessary to ensure that GWP has sufficient energy as well as capacity.

GWP procures energy from the wholesale market and then sells to its customers at the retail rates so cost effectiveness would have to compare the cost of the asset to the cost of comparable wholesale projects.

91. If A/S like frequency regulation will be considered, will these be assigned a value? If so, how will this compare to the value assigned to load modification?

There is a value for A/S that typically comes out in the modeling but when you have a battery that’s doing A/S services, it typically allows your thermal resources to operate at a better efficiency. That’s a value you can capture in a dispatch load system.

92. Can you provide detailed information on the existing Air Way connection equipment for Grayson? Information that can help us determine the capacity that can handle. Transformers, etc.

Grayson will be connected to 69 kV Kellogg GIS switching substation. Per a study that has been conducted for Grayson repowering project, Kellogg is capable of accepting proposed 254 MVA of new generation. Kellogg is tied to Airway substation by way of three Airway-Kellogg lines. Each line is the 69 kV side of a 230 kV/ 69 kV power transformer at Airway substation. Each transformer has 108 MVA OA rating.

All interconnections at the Grayson site will be available at 69kV.

The following positions at Kellogg substation are available or will be available (because of the potential demolition and relocation) for new power sources:

Two tie transformer connection to 34.5 kV Glendale rack.

Unit 8A, 8 B/C connections.

Future unit 10A and 10B positions

93. Can you talk briefly about the avoided cost modeling? Are you going to assign a dollar per KW value?

The relevant metric of value is net present value of the entire portfolio over a 20-year horizon. Our modeling tool is a production cost model that simulates the dispatch of Glendale’s system. Production cost is the cost of operating Glendale’s resources, serving ancillary requirements, and the cost of market transactions to serve load. We also incorporate capital costs in the final NPV calculation. We look at the proposer’s solution and the value of it in the portfolio. We are looking for the best portfolio for that meets reliability needs in terms of capacity and reserves at the least cost to Glendale’s customers. We do not expect everyone to show up with 234 MW, as the City may pick multiple solutions.

94. Will the avoided cost evaluation be compared to the economics of the Grayson repowering or will it be a comparison to other proposals?

Both. The Grayson repowering is one scenario. We are looking at alternative portfolios that either 1) contain local/regional clean energy options with no local thermal resources or 2) contain local/regional clean energy resource with a scaled down repowering or an altogether different dispatchable thermal technology. We are trying to find the best deal for Glendale customers.

95. What’s the avoided cost per KWH of not rebuilding Grayson?

The avoided cost of not rebuilding Grayson is estimated at $500 million.

96. Are the repowering avoided costs posted anywhere to look at as a marker?

No.

97. Is there any distribution level data or hotspots within the city that may be more beneficial to the grid and to Glendale by locating capacity there vs other locations in the city?

Montrose substation currently has the longest feeders and would be most likely to experience larger voltage drops from the substation to the ends of its respective feeders. If the proposer has specific proposals about placement of distributed generation, City staff can evaluate and review further. In general, the distribution network was designed with Grayson, Air Way, and Western as the primary energy sources. Moving the energy sources to the distribution substations would be counter to that original design and would require additional study, depending upon the specific proposal.

98. Does the City have a preference regarding payment over time vs full payment on transfer of ownership? These are all around you owning the asset, not PPA type deals where we’re selling services over 20 years is that correct?

We prefer PPA arrangements for projects that are not on City property. Virtual power plants, for instance. If the project will be on City property, our preference is to own that asset and control that asset.

99. For evaluations, do you have a reference data set that would have an 8760 with LMPs with gas pricing and load?

No.

100. You only need a base load of 200 MW for about 500 hours a year, is that correct?

101. Do you have a rate that you are planning on charging that we can use a reference for modeling for charging of the battery? What is the rate that you/we will be charging?

We do not have a specific rate that we’re looking at. Proposers should look at forward market data and current rate structure to determine the cost of recharging.

102. What would be a good proxy? [Refer to q101]

Mead 230, NOB n/s, SP-15. All nodes need to be adjusted for delivery to the Glendale side of Air Way.

103. Is it safe to say that when you can, you want to use batteries for regulation needs?

We may want to use batteries for regulation needs if cost effective and feasible. We do have a requirement from LA to say within our bands on a MVAr basis as well. We can potentially use batteries to stay within those bands.

104. Do you have a specific requirement on frequency regulation control that you need to put aside certain margins for that? The same for spinning reserves.

Yes. A copy of our balancing authority area agreement with LADWP is available here.

105. Can you provide interconnection capacities or rough line capacities for some of these other properties so we could know how big of a system will be proposed?

The Aggregate Load Data from 2013-2017 does not reflect wholesale sales. Refer to the Aggregate Load Data for purposes of submitting a response to the CleanEnergy RFP.

111. A power line, on the northern side of the Scholl Canyon Landfill services telecommunications towers atop the hill (located at: 34° 9'48.70"N 118°11'47.33"W). Are you able to confirm if this line is owned by GWP and, if so, what is the voltage of this line?

The power lines that go up to the communication towers at that location do belong to GWP, and they are 12 kV.

112. If proposing a BESS would it require an enclosure?

The size of the battery will dictate the environmental control, fire suppression, air quality and other requirements that may necessitate an enclosure.

113. Would the City of Glendale consider accepting a Parent Company Guarantee in lieu of a proposal bond and performance bond?

If the proposer is proposing construction of a public work or the supply of materials for a public project to be paid for by the City, then the proposer must provide a proposal security as required by Section 20170 of the California Public Contract Code, in one of the forms specified in the RFP (cash, cashier’s check, certified check, or proposal bond). If the proposer is proposing a power purchase agreement or another arrangement that does not constitute the construction of a public project or the supply of materials for a public project to be paid for by the City, the proposer may provide a letter of credit or a parent guarantee.

Acceptance of a letter of credit or parent guarantee in lieu of the forms of proposal security specified in the RFP is subject to the following conditions:

The form and terms of the proposed letter of credit/ parent guarantee is subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

The issuing bank/entity must be approved by the City’s Director of Finance.

The proposed letter of credit / parent guarantee should be submitted to the City for review no later than 10 business days before the Proposal Deadline for review 5 business days of notice that the proposer has been short-listed.

A letter of credit or parent guarantee may be accepted in lieu of the performance bond on a case by case basis (depending upon the nature of the Project and the City’s evaluation of the risk). The Letter of Credit or Parent Guarantee and the issuing bank/ entity would be subject to the approval of the City.

A payment bond is required.

114. Does GWP expect to follow the same 9 month demolition plan cited in the final EIR? What’s the earliest that GWP could start demolition?

Demolition of the entire power plant (other than Unit 9) is expected to require 9 months to complete. The earliest that demolition could begin would be 3 months following certification of an environmental document under CEQA. Following the CEQA process, the City would issue bids for the demolition work. It is expected to require 3 months to bid the demolition work and enter into a contract.

115. What will GWP put in place of the excavations during the demolition after all utilities and foundations are removed (soil, slurry, sand, etc.)?

Proposers should assume for proposal purposes that the demolition site will be a graded field.

116. Can GWP provide the city’s design standards for electrical and civil work that’ll be conducted on site?

City follows applicable industry standards.

117. Can GWP provide a map of the geography in which eligible resources can interconnect to relevant transmission and/or distribution system feeders or substations, for purposes of providing the solicited capacity? i.e., Is the project eligibility area limited to the City of Glendale, or would resources electrically connected to LADWP’s transmission system, the Pacific DC intertie transmission line and/or the Southwest area transmission system be eligible for participation in the RFP?

Please see responses to Question Numbers 25, 29, 35, and 69.

118. For a behind the meter solar and storage project, how would the energy be delivered to you?

Via the GWP distribution system. The City requires an interconnection agreement with the customer.

119. In order to accurately provide a schedule, are you able to estimate the interconnection study time associated with a PV solar project ranging in size from 0.5 - 1MW?

The time frame is dependent upon the complexity of the study, location of the interconnection, existing facilities and infrastructure, and the nature of the proposed project. Proposals should include assumptions and a time estimate to complete the interconnection study.

120. It was previously indicated that the power lines serving the communications towers, north of Scholl Canyon LF are owned by GWP. Are you able to provide information related to their capacity for generated power?

The line were designed and engineered with the intent to serve a communication tower (#4 copper serving three - 167 MVA transformers). For the purposes of this proposal, proposers may need to retrofit the infrastructure to accommodate the proposal. For example, include the cost of re-conductoring, re-insulating, new crossarms, etc. using existing poles.

121. Can you provide a listing of the kind of contingencies you will look at? Transmission, gas constraints, emission constraints, ramp rates?

The capacity requirements are driven by need to serve peak demand and NERC N-1 and N-1-1 requirements. The model takes into account transmission constraints and ramp rates, but assumes no gas constraints. We also assure that Glendale’s portfolio will meet or exceed RPS and GHG emissions targets.

The proposal will include forms and narrative responses which will allow the proposer the opportunity to fully explain their proposal.

123. Please clarify what you mean by “Electronic control will be necessary for aggregated demand response (DR) and VPPs …” on page 5 of the RFP? Does this mean that GWP expects to have full dispatch control over any proposed project?

GWP prefers full dispatch control over any proposed VPP. However, GWP welcomes proposals in which the aggregator maintains dispatch control within agreed-upon limits and requirements, to be determined at a later date.

124. Is GWP open to a VPP project where the aggregator maintains dispatch control, provided that the aggregator has a performance-based contract with GWP?

GWP prefers full dispatch control over any proposed VPP. However, GWP welcomes proposals in which the aggregator maintains dispatch control within agreed-upon limits and requirements, to be determined at a later date.

125. Would GWP assign incremental value to a resource that ramps in size from 2021-2024 or beyond? i.e., Would GWP assign additional value to incrementally increasing resource capacity if and when GWP’s capacity need grows, as related to potential further retirement of existing generation assets from 2021-2024? Or will delivery of full asset capacity for the 2021-2024 period be required as of April 2021?

No, a resource that ramps in size from 2021-2024 will not be considered, as delivery of the full asset is required by April 2021.

126. What are the transfer capabilities (both ways) in megawatts between:

Also, are there seasonal or other limitations in terms of transfer capabilities?

GWP is not subject to seasonal operating limits imposed by NERC, however transfer capabilities are subject to real-time load fluctuations.

127. For the battery project at the Grayson Power Plant site, can you please confirm whether the Bidder will need to assume the cost to install all of the necessary equipment to interconnect at 69kV (presumably at the Kellogg switchyard)?

Yes. For the purpose of this proposal, proposers should assume an interconnection at the Kellogg switchyard at 69 kV

128. How many feeders are available for the battery project at the Kellogg switchyard?

6 - 8

129. Should the MW rating at the POI (assumed to be Kellogg switchyard 69kV) be net of any auxiliary loads?

Yes. The MW rating at the point of interconnection (which is Kellogg at 69 kV) should be net of all auxiliary loads.

130. Would any thermal load be considered an auxiliary load?

Yes.

131. Can you please provide the 69 / 34.5kV transformer ratings for the “Glendale rack” at Kellogg switchyard?

For the purposes of this proposal assume that the Glendale Rack will be removed.

132. Are there particular times of day, month, or year when resource performance will be requested, or will resources be required to be available every day of every year during the performance period? Will resource performance be valued differently dependent on performance period (e.g., variation in value assigned based on time of day, month, or year)?

Every day of every year. Value is assigned based on the avoided cost for each hour of performance. Therefore, periods of peak net load have the highest value.

133. How many performance periods per month or year will resources be required to deliver?

We’re not requiring any specific number, but note that GWP needs resources that are dispatchable when needed for system reliability. Limitations on resource availability will reduce the value of the resource.

134. Will resources with the capability to provide ancillary services (e.g., regulation management, spin/non-spin reserves) be valued more highly than resources not providing these services? If so, can GWP provide an indicative value of the relative weighting ancillary services will be given, relative to energy and capacity?

Resources that can perform both services are typically more valuable. Using CAISO prices for the value of A/S versus energy is a good proxy for Glendale’s system value for each product.

135. How will passive net load reduction from BTM solar generation be evaluated, when it coincides with GWP’s system peak?

Net load reduction reduces the need for GWP grid resources to supply energy and capacity, therefore the value comes out in the overall portfolio analysis.

136. Could you please indicate the capacity value given to solar projects?

Not at this time, but it should be noted that capacity is the real need of the system, therefore solar projects that orient westward to maximize capacity value over energy value are likely to be more valuable.

137. Is it possible to schedule another site visit at Grayson? We’d specifically like the opportunity to inspect the Kellogg switchyard.

No, the opportunities for site visits have expired.

138. The proposal states on page 14 that we have 30 days after award to sign a contract, but the form of proposal security states that we have 60 days. Which deadline does the City intend to enforce?

60 days – Clarification is available in Addendum No. 1 including Redlined RFP This has been corrected in Addendum 1 including Redlined RFP.

139. Could you provide more detail of your residential and commercial loads? We are interested in the percent or kW demand contribution relative to the system demand for the following subsectors

148. (Permitting) – Since the proposed BESS design may be a larger footprint than what was planned in the original EIR, is the City willing to amend the original EIR, or is it assumed that the Proposer will take on a new land use approval / CEQA process?

We would have to review the proposal in order to make a determination regarding the CEQA process.

149. The RFP, Section VI Proposal Submittal Requirements, states the following: "Each proposal must be submitted on the electronic forms provided by the City at the bidders conference." Where are those forms?

151. Who is the Lead Agency to whom CEQA documentation will be submitted for a project at Scholl Canyon LF?

The City of Glendale. However, it will depend upon the specifics of the project proposed, including location and permitting.

152. Can you provide a listing of the kind of contingencies you will look at? Transmission, gas constraints, emission constraints, ramp rates?

The capacity requirements are driven by need to serve peak demand and NERC N-1 and N-1-1 requirements. The model takes into account transmission constraints and ramp rates, but assumes no gas constraints. We also assure that Glendale’s portfolio will meet or exceed RPS and GHG emissions targets.

153. GWP mentioned in the RFP that the “estimated cycle dynamics” would be provided.

A battery will be used for regulation (10s of cycles per day) when not used for capacity (1 cycle per day) - about 100 days per year. This information has been added to the RFP. See Addendum 1 including Redlined RFP.

154. Can GWP provide sample Payment Bond and Maintenance Bond forms, similar to the Proposal Bond form in the RFP document? If not, can you outline the general terms and conditions of the bonds (conditions under which GWP could draw from the bond, length of time or term, etc.)?

The City’s Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and Maintenance Bond forms have been added to Attachment A of the RFP. See Addendum 1 including Redlined RFP.

155. The form of proposal security indicates that the City can draw on the bond if (i) we withdraw our Proposal within 90 days after submitting the proposal security; or (ii) if we attempt to withdraw our Proposal when the requirements of California Public Contract Code Section 5101 are not met. The second element does not contain a time limit. Page 14 indicates that the City intends the proposal security to expire on the earlier of 90 days from its issuance, or upon the successful bidder’s submittal of certain documents. Can it be clarified in the proposal security document, that the obligation to maintain such security expires at such time?

Timelines for relief from bids are provided in Section 5100 et seq. of the California Public Contract Code. The language of the City’s Proposal Bond cannot be changed, but clarifying wording has been added to the RFP via Addendum 1 including Redlined RFP.

156. (Financing) - We understand that the City is considering issuing revenue bonds to finance the project. If so, what approvals are needed for such an issuance, and if approved, when would the bonds be issued? Would the funding be fully raised before NTP?

The City has not made any decision regarding how the clean energy project(s) would be financed. The Proposal must include a description of the proposed funding mechanism. To the extent that the City elects to finance any GWP project with bonds, the City Council must approve the issuance of the revenue bonds. The bonds would be issued per the procedure in the Article XXVI of the Glendale Charter. If the City Council elects to proceed with bond financing, the bonds would be issued following completion of the CEQA process. GWP expects that the funding would be fully raised before NTP.

157. With regard to part R (L in redline) in Section VIII, is it acceptable for the Bidder to provide a guarantee that the Bidder will secure a qualified Contractor with a valid Contractor Registration Number in lieu of providing a Contractor Registration Number in the proposal submittal, given that the Bidder will not sign an agreement with a contractor, obligating the Bidder to hire and pay such contractor, until the Bidder has been selected by the City Council?

Per California law (SB 854), proof of contractor registration is required at the time the proposal is submitted unless the bidder is legally exempt from the registration requirement. See California Labor Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.

158. I’m trying to find out gas composition of landfill gas that gets pipelined from Scholl Canyon Landfill. My understanding is that this gas is processed at the landfill and gets mixed with natural gas before entering existing Grayson Power Plant. I’m specifically looking for gas composition after it is processed and after it is mixed with natural gas (at 2 separate stages). Do you have this information available? If not, would you be able to direct me to the right place? Thank you for your help in advance. Do you have a fuel gas analysis you’d like us to use for our bid?

Proposers should work off of the raw/untreated gas as the existing facility requires replacement due to old age and the Proposed Biogas Renewable Generation Project is yet to be approved.

Proposers for the CleanEnergy RFP should not assume that the LFG will be processed/cleaned. The analytical results of raw/untreated LFG sampled on 01/06/16 from the Scholl Canyon Landfill can be found here. Please note that this is of a single grab sample. Actual composition may differ.

160. I have read your RFP covering Energy and Capacity Resource Options for the City of Glendale. I could not find any criteria regarding the nationality of a proponent, can a company without a subsidiary in the US participate?

The RFP does not require that the proposer be a US Corporation or have a US subsidiary.

161. How long are we obligated to continue updating the Campaign Finance Disclosure form?

At the time the proposal is submitted. If a proposal is chosen the disclosure form must be updated prior to City Council consideration of the award.

162. Can GWP send one year of historical tie-line deviations with LADWP? Preference is for the same data set that was provided to Pace Global during the 2015 IRP, but for a more recent year.

The BAASA requires the deviation to be less than or equal to +/-8 MW on a 15 minute cycle. Please note this is different than the standard that was in affect from the 2015 IRP.

163. Do the bond forms provided in Attachment A (proposal bond, payment bond, performance bond, and maintenance bond) have to be completed and submitted with our proposal or only if the bidder makes the shortlist? My understanding is they do not need to be completed and submitted with our proposal.

The bonds do not need to be submitted with the proposal. The Proposal Security is due within 10 business days of the City’s notice to Proposer that it has been short-listed. The Payment Bond and Performance Bond must be submitted if the proposer is awarded the contract, concurrently with the contractor’s execution of the contract. The Maintenance Bond must be submitted after completion of the project, and before the filing and recordation of a Notice of Completion for the project

164. The project already has a signed LGIA with SDG&E and a POI is SDG&E's East Boulevard sub. Reading Q&A, I have found that if remote projects, which will be applied to our project, are offered it is mandatory to deliver all power to the Glendale side of Air Way Receiving Station. Would the referred project, POI- SDG&E Boulevard Sub, be able to transmit the power to the Air Way Receiving Station? In order to deliver the power to LADWP transmission line, is the developer responsible for communicating with LADWP?

It is the responsibility of the Proposer to confirm that the power can be delivered to the Glendale side of Air Way as part of its proposal. The developer is responsible for communicating with LADWP and making any necessary arrangements to ensure delivery of the resource to the Glendale side of Air Way.

165. Are the Western and Airway the only interconnection points?

Yes. Proposals for resources coming from outside of Glendale must be delivered to the Glendale side of Air Way.

166. Can you provide the load profile (hourly, in a similar format as what was provided in response to Question 19) at the following substations: Rossmoyne Substation & Tropico Substation

The load profiles for the Rossmoyne & Tropico feeders have been updated as of 7/30/18. Click here to download the updated load profiles.

167. What are the transfer capabilities in megawatts between Tropico Substation and Kellogg?

There are two 69KV lines between Kellogg and Tropico and each can carry 77.7MW @90C (including load).

168. Is there a spare bay at Rossmoyne Substation or the ability to expand the substation?

There is no a spare bay nor the ability to expand the substation.

169. Is there a spare bay at Tropico Substation or the ability to expand the substation?

There is a 69KV breaker position available. Substation can be expanded pending 4k to 12kv conversion project (outside of substation) and demolition of the 4kv portion of the substation.

170. If we submit a fuel-cell based solution what template can be used?

Because a fuel-cell proposal does not neatly fit the templates provided, proposers that are submitting a fuel-cell based solution should contact CleanEnergyRFP@glendaleca.gov for information regarding the data that is needed to model your proposed project.

171. The instructions state that simulations will be run on hourly data but “Energy Forecast” tab in “Solar Template” is in monthly interval. We would greatly appreciate your advice on which instruction/form to follow.

We are requesting historical data on an hourly timescale and forecast data on a monthly timescale, because our model works stochastically, meaning that it uses data on the historical variability of a resource to introduce accurate variability to simulated future power generation. These timescales are intentionally different for the reasons explained below.

Simulation does occur on an hourly timescale. In order to accurately simulate the performance of resources into the future, the model uses both hourly (“Historical”) data as well as monthly (“Forecast”) data.

Historical data is entered on an hourly basis and is needed for modeling the hourly/ weekly timescale performance of the project. For projects in which no historical data is available, a submission of hourly performance estimates over the course of years (preferably more than one) is allowable. The project need not have been implemented in Glendale in the past, as long as the proposer can reasonably characterize the hourly savings shape we would expect. Historical Program Performance data is used to determine the “shape" of the future performance on an hourly timescale.

Forecast data is entered at monthly intervals because it is used only to determine the long-term behavior of a project on the monthly/ yearly timescale into the future. The “shape” of historical data is scaled to match the monthly forecast in the future, allowing for accurate simulation of a resource on both short and long timescales.

172. Can GWP please specify what BESS MW size and duration (i.e., 4 hour battery) was assumed for the proposed use case in the redlined RFP instructions - “A battery would be used for regulation (10s of cycles per day) when not used for capacity (1 cycle per day) - about 100 days per year.”?

We had in mind a 4-hour duration battery for the statement above, since only 4-hour duration or greater counts for capacity. That said, a shorter duration battery (e.g. less than 4 hours) provides value primarily for regulation, so you can assume regulation is the primary purpose if you're proposing such a solution. Of course, a shorter duration battery can be discharged over 4-hours at lower capacity, and we’ll give it credit for that as well. For example, a 100 MW / 1 hour battery would get credit for 25 MW of capacity at 4 hours. In general, a smaller capacity battery will be used more frequently for regulation than for capacity, and hence will likely be cycled more frequently, and vice versa. The exact cycling characteristics will be determined by the needs of the overall GWP portfolio and cannot be specified at this time, but large, flexible battery systems will generally find use in nearly any portfolio.

173. We have a question about the Energy Efficiency Proposal Form. We are unsure whether the second tab, “Historical Program Performance,” is applicable to our proposal. What information is GWP looking to receive on this tab? Is it only relevant for historical energy efficiency projects in the City of Glendale?

Historical data is necessary, regardless of whether the project has been previously implemented in Glendale or elsewhere. Historical data is needed for modeling the hourly/weekly timescale performance of the project, but for projects in which no historical data is available a submission of hourly performance estimates over the course of years (preferably more than one) is allowable. The project need not have been implemented in Glendale in the past, as long as you can reasonably characterize the hourly savings shape we would expect.

Historical Program Performance data is used to determine the “shape” of the future performance on an hourly timescale. For an efficiency program, this historical shape could be the estimated reduction in load as a function of time (MW reported on an hourly basis). The variation in this shape on an hourly and weekly timescale (for example, smaller savings during the night when there are fewer interruptible loads) will be used to simulate future performance. The Forecast data will then be used to scale the historical performance across future months and years (to accommodate seasonal changes in performance and decreasing performance over the lifetime of the asset, for example).

174. What are the warranty terms Glendale is looking for, for both storage and solar?

For purposes of responding to the RFP, please submit a proposal for a 20 year warranty. The City reserves the right to negotiate a different warranty term with the proposer.

175. What is the tie in voltage for the battery system?

The existing 2 MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), rated at a nominal voltage of 700 V DC, connects to Glendale’s power system at a nominal 69 kV AC. A Power Conditioning System (PCS), rated at a nominal voltage of 373 V AC, and a 373/69 kV transformer, are used to convert the DC to AC and to step up the voltage.

178. Will Glendale want the battery system to have automatic dispatch, or a GUI that allows for manual dispatch?

Glendale prefers to have as much flexibility as possible for the battery system.

179. For the Grayson power plant array, would Glendale consider a 7-year operating lease?

No. Ten years would be the minimum term, and for projects on City property, our preference is to own and control the asset.

180. What structure will remain after the demolition of Grayson? Specifically, we’d like to know where the tie-in point is for the solar + storage system.

For purposes of this proposal proposers should assume the tie-in point would be at the Kellogg switchyard at 69 kV.

181. Does Glendale currently have the means to schedule and dispatch a DR event? If we plan to include DR measures as part of our DSM bid, should we also plan to integrate a partner who can manage DR events on behalf of GWP?

GWP’s current DR program is managed by a contractor. If you plan to include DR measures as part of your DSM bid, you should include management of the DR events as part of your proposal.

182. What is the charge to move power from Sylmar to Airway on LADWP's system?

183. Are you preferring a 50 MW storage solution or is a 20 MW solution also viable?

Either a 50 MW or a 20 MW solution may be proposed. Please also see response to questions 76 and 77.

184. In the RFP 4 hours of storage is the longest storage time mentioned. Are you also looking for longer storage if the solution is cost competitive?

Yes.

185. We will be working toward a PPA with the host site that will be part of a project we are proposing to GWP as a response to this RFP. However the PPA terms will not be finalized by the date of proposal submittal. Will the city still consider our proposal?

Proposers may submit a proposal for the City’s consideration even if the PPA is not final. However, because the evaluation will consider the feasibility of the Project, the Proposer must include assurances that the PPA will be finalized, such as a letter of commitment, and the plan and timing for completion of the PPA. In this regard, the RFP states:

Site control. If the sites are on land not owned by the City or the proposer, provide information and evidence regarding site control or permission to construction the proposed project on the site. Identify the nature of the completed site control. If partial site control remains, share the expected plan to obtain control and timing for completion. For demand response and energy efficiency programs, include estimates of program effectiveness and penetration, with references to similar programs at other California utilities.

186. What 4 hour time window for the grid has the highest system load throughout the year?

Hours 16:00 to 20:00.

187. When will the proposals be made public?

As stated in the RFP, Proposals will be kept confidential until such time as the City has completed its evaluation of the proposals and has published a City Council package providing the results of the evaluation of the proposals. Upon completion of its evaluation of the Proposals, the City will present to the City Council the results of the evaluation in an open session City Council meeting. Upon publication of a City Council report regarding the results of the evaluation of the Proposals, the Proposals will become subject to public review (with the exception of any information that has been designated as confidential). Proposers must designate proprietary and confidential information in their proposals.

188. Do bidders need to fill out the battery templates if bidding solar + storage in a PPA?

Yes.

189. The cost summary has the following question for each year but I didn’t see a definition of the peak hours. Can Glendale define the peak demand hours or share a load shape? “Expected contribution of capacity to peak demand (MW)”

190. As a follow-up to Questions 166 and Question 167, it appears that Kellogg – Tropico can transfer 155.4 MW (77.7 MW x 2) of capacity while Tropico has a maximum load of 10.5 MW. Would it be a correct interpretation to assume that the remaining capacity could be used to charge an energy storage system?

The current transmission system was designed with redundancy to allow substations to be fed from multiple transmission lines, in the event of the failure of the nominal transmission line. This redundancy allows the utility to continue to serve load during transmission or even substation outages. While leveraging the unused capacity at any given moment to charge an energy storage system is possible, GWP would need to reevaluate its transmission system design to ensure this redundancy is not compromised; major system improvements and enhancements may be necessary to maintain this redundancy if available capacity is reserved for charging of the energy storage system

191. Are any loads associated with Acacia and Scholl included in the load profile of Tropico? If not, can you provide them in the same format as Question 166?

Some of the load within the load profile of the Tropico feeders may include loads associated with Acacia and/or Scholl. Further study would be required to determine the exact nature of these loads in different scenarios.

Click here to view the load profiles for the Acacia and Scholl feeders.